Kslegislature.net

JOINT COMMITTEE ON SPECIAL CLAIMS AGAINST THE STATE
Members Present
Senator Tim Owens, ChairpersonRepresentative Rocky Fund, Vice-chairpersonSenator Terry BruceSenator Kelly KultalaSenator Ty MastersonSenator Dennis PyleRepresentative Bill FeuerbornRepresentative Bob GrantRepresentative Broderick HendersonRepresentative Steve HuebertRepresentative Jeff KingRepresentative Rob OlsonRepresentative Joe Patton Staff Present
Cindy Lash, Kansas Legislative Research DepartmentAmy Deckard, Kansas Legislative Research DepartmentDylan Dear, Kansas Legislative Research DepartmentMike Heim, Office of the Revisor of StatutesDaniel Yoza, Office of the Revisor of StatutesKathy Letch, Committee Secretary Thursday, December 3
Chairperson Owens called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. Cindy Lash, Kansas Legislative Research Department (KLRD), announced a change in staff assignments for the Claims Committee. Dylan Dear, KLRD, will be taking Amy Deckard's place asstaff for the Claims Committee.
Representative Fund moved to approve the minutes of the November 2-3, 2009, meetings with addition of the Committee decisions on claimants Stacker and Shanklin; RepresentativeFeuerborn seconded the motion; the motion carried. The Chairperson opened the telephone hearings filed by inmates at Lansing Correctional
Facility.
Brian K. Kinney summarized Claim No. 6154 against Kansas Department of Corrections
(KDOC) disputing restitution charged against him in the amount of $595.90. Mr. Kinney explainedthat he was charged $595.90 restitution without prior notice being given to him that this would occur.
He also contended that the time frame stipulated in internal management policy and procedure(IMPP) was not followed. Mr. Kinney claimed that he had been told that if he pled guilty, the situationwould be taken care of right away, so he complied. Restitution had not been mentioned until thesentencing, but it was too late to change his plea. He chose to appeal the decision, but was notgiven an appeal form. Officer Stevens brought final disposition to him; appeal form was neverbrought to him. They never have given him a reason for the restitution charged against him.
Libby Snider, Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC), responded saying Mr. Kinney’s complaint was that he was denied due process. He had never previously mentioned that he wasunable to receive appeal forms. Captain Onuth said he had informed Mr. Kinney of the costs ofrestitution and Mr. Kinney had responded stating that he did not think that was too bad. Officer timeto investigate Mr. Kinney’s location and process him is itemized in the documentation. An appealcould have taken care of the issue. She requested that this claim be denied.
Mr. Kinney stated he did not appeal because he was not given appeal forms upon requesting them. The issue of charging restitution was only brought up with him at the sentencing. Timepassed prior to submitting the claim because Mr. Kinney was in the county jail.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6154 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Carl A. Butler summarized Claim No. 6197 against KDOC due to loss of property in the
amount of $122.75. Mr. Butler says this matter could have been taken care of in last year’s claimto replace his television. Since then, he purchased a new television; they found his missingtelevision; they then told him he would have to mail out one of the televisions. He was refused apass to mail out property, so they ended up destroying the found television. The purchase price ofthe television was $97.75. The balance being requested in the claim is for mailing the television.
Libby Snider, KDOC, responded saying after transfer to another facility, Mr. Butler did not note any discrepancies on inventory lists. Upon finding his television had been replaced, he thenowned two, which is not allowed. One was retained in storage while Mr. Butler was informed thathe was going to have to make disposition of one of them, and the facility had even offered to paythe shipping costs to send it out. Mr. Butler had argued that he should have been able to keep thetelevision or to sell it to another inmate. He never informed the property officer that he was willingto send out the television or that he had an address for shipping. She recommended this claim bedenied.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6197 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Matthew Ebel summarized Claim No. 6198 against KDOC due to loss of property for
$15.16. Mr. Ebel received a disciplinary report for dealing and trading. The authorities said his fooditems would be forwarded to his inventory. It was changed to not be stored, but was destroyed.
Libby Snider, KDOC, responded saying that Mr. Ebel was found dragging a laundry bag of food items to his cell. He was charged with dealing and trading and the food items were confiscatedas contraband. She recommended the claim be denied.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6198 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Jeffery Alan Turner summarized Claim No. 6201 against KDOC due to loss of property in
the amount of $45.04. When Mr. Turner was sent to segregation for fighting, the officers sent hisproperty to him, he checked the inventory, then the officers determined that it had been improperlypacked out. They then re-packed his property. Mr. Turner claimed he was missing property fromthe second packout.
Libby Snider, KDOC, responded saying that Mr. Turner did file a facility property claim, which was investigated. It was determined that the only items not returned to him or held in storage weregiven to him in money and that he signed a form waiving any further claim on the missing property.
She recommended that this claim be denied.
Mr. Turner stated that he was not informed that the signing the paper was final action on the Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6201 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Tracy A. Markee summarized Claim No. 6205 against KDOC due to loss of property in the
amount of $149.48. He cited page two of the KDOC written recommendation for this claim, sayingthat his incentive level was incorrect. He had ordered a television due to the fact that he wassupposed to have been reduced to a Level I. He did inform the counselor that he should have hadan incentive level reduction prior to ordering of the television. They did not correct his incentive level.
He should have been able to keep the television that he ordered.
Libby Snider, KDOC responded saying that Mr. Markee may have said to staff that his level should have been reduced. However, he would have had to send out the television regardless ofhis custody level. He did not send out the television, so the facility removed it. She recommendedthat this claim be denied.
Mr. Markee interjected that the property disposition slips were sent to him prior to the response from the facility on the status of his case.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6205 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Anthony Conley summarized Claim No. 6193 against KDOC due to personal injury and
other damages in the amount of $50,000. Medically prescribed tinted lenses were taken from him.
The $50,000 is for the suffering caused by the disregard of his personal needs by the officer.
Libby Snider, KDOC, responded saying that the officer contradicted Mr. Conley’s statements.
The officer contacted medical staff who said that the glasses were not totally signed-off by themedical staff. He was not allowed to have the glasses on during the picture taking session with hisfamily. Mr. Conley requested the video tapes of the visit session with his family to show that he was wearing the glasses upon entering the visitation room.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6193 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) The Chairperson opened the hearings filed by Kansas counties against the State Treasurer.
James Crowl, Assistant Shawnee County Counselor, representing 12 Kansas county
claimants, summarized Claims No. 6206, 6213, 6214, 6215, 6216, 6217, 6218, 6219, 6220, 6221,
6222, and 6223 against the State Treasurer due to underpayment of motor fuel tax refunds made
for FY 2000-FY 2005. The claimants and amounts of the claims are as follows:
Board of County Commissioners of Ness County $ 26,001.02 Board of County Commissioners of Barton County Board of County Commissioners of Cowley County Board of County Commissioners of Geary County Board of County Commissioners of Grant County Board of County Commissioners of Lane County Board of County Commissioners of Leavenworth 1,311,748.28 County Board of County Commissioners of Rice County Board of County Commissioners of Russell County Board of County Commissioners of Shawnee County 6,599,319.38 Board of County Commissioners of Trego County Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City 233,074.94 Mr. Crowl stated that there is a predetermined formula to calculate the amount of motor fuel tax to be refunded. He said there were actually two issues to address, the miscalculation in theformula and that satellite offices were not included in the refunds. Shawnee County was told thisproblem went back at least to 2000 and affected 19 counties in Kansas. The statute states that itis mandatory that the counties be paid. Therefore, they are requesting payment of the differencebetween what was paid and the correct amounts. Mr. Crowl stated that, when meeting with theKansas Department of Revenue (KDOR) last year, KDOR said the data was lost or they did not haveit. They have now been able to recreate the figures. Scott Gates, State Treasurer’s Office, has theupdated numbers for FY 2000-2005, but they just received them from KDOR and have not had anopportunity to review them.
Committee members questions followed, to which Mr. Crowl replied.
! Why were only 12 counties filing claims at this time?
They were the ones that responded to Shawnee County's letters.
! Are the overpaid counties expected to repay the overpayment amounts?
Mr. Crowl replied that this was a decision that was up to the State to decide.
! What caused the miscalculation?
The software package that they had purchased and implemented wasprogrammed incorrectly. ! Are audits done and yet they missed this?
Yes, an independent auditor performs an audit each year.
! Are different auditors hired each year?
! If this claim is not allowed, is a lawsuit probable?
Chairperson Owens stated this Committee is considered the court of last resort and the counties' administrative remedies have not been exhausted. Procedure over the years has been thatall other avenues be exhausted prior to coming to the Committee.
The claim was filed prior to a lawsuit because the statute states that the claim should be filed The Chairperson recommended that the Committee defer any action and that this issue be taken before the Appropriations Committee. Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claims No. 6206, 6213, 6214, 6215, 6216, 6217, 6218, 6219, 6220, 6221, 6222, and 6223 be referred to the House AppropriationsCommittee and action on the claims be carried over to a future meeting of the Claims Committee.
(See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) The Chairperson opened the telephone hearings filed by inmates at Larned State Hospital
Max R. Saiz summarized Claim No. 6203 against the Department of Social and
Rehabilitation Services (SRS) for property damage in the amount of $450.00. Mr. Saiz' unit waslocked down, he was moved to an isolation room, and his cell was thoroughly searched. Mr. Saizstates that during this process, his LCD television was bent and scratched when put at the bottomof the cart. Mr. Saiz' sister sent him $377 for a new television from WalMart. His old television wasnot destroyed, but was bent and scratched up on the stand, the back, and the front. He was told hecould replace it or send it in for repairs. He had Mr. Burke, witness to the event, present with himin the counselor's office during this hearing.
Brenda Hagerman, LSH, was on the phone from LSH and Elizabeth Phelps, SRS, was present. The summary is that there was no clear indication of negligence on the part of LSH staffand she recommended that this claim be denied.
Mr. Saiz asked if staff was not responsible, but the television was in their care when it was A Committee member asked what the reason was for shakedown. It was a search for contraband, but Mr. Saiz stated that none was found in his room. Ms. Hagerman could not confirmthis statement. Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6203 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Dustin J. Merryfield summarized Claim No. 6018 against LSH in the mount of $3,096.24
for costs for copies of legal materials and postage. Mr. Merryfield is civilly committed. The facilityrefused to recognize him as indigent for about a year. Prior to the change in classification, herequested other people to pay for his ongoing legal cases.
Liz Phelps, SRS, responded that litigation activities that Mr. Merryfield chose to participate in are at his discretion. She recommended that this claim be denied. Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6018 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) The Chairperson opened the hearings filed by the Whites against SRS.
Kim J. White summarized carried over Claim No. 5841 against SRS for mental and
emotional anguish for $51,000. SRS took his children without investigating and placed them witha child abuser. His wife lost them back into the state's custody. Mr. White's youngest son has beenadopted out-of-state and his oldest son has been back in Mr. White's custody for seven months. Mr.
White asked SRS to reinvestigate why the boys were taken from him. Mr. White states that he hascomplied with SRS 100 percent. The claim is based on the allegation that SRS abused him and hischildren by taking his children from him and exposing them to abuse.
Nolan Chance White summarized Claim No. 6208 against SRS due to the mental and
physical abuse and SRS misconduct for $250,000. SRS removed him from his parents when he waseight years old, moving him from foster home to home. He became emotionally unstable; his selfesteem suffered. When he was ten years old, SRS gave him back to his mother who let him doillegal drugs and did not care for him. He was again taken out of the mother's home, moved to fosterhomes, and was "adoptable" for six years. He is now 16 years old. He has not seen his brother,with whom his was close, for two and one half years. Mr. White stated that he arrived at the $250,000 figure by determining how much the foster homes were receiving from SRS for taking him, but were spending the money on themselves.
Sue McKenna, SRS, responded by saying that SRS did investigate; the court found that SRS was working to reintegrate Nolan with his mother or father. They have been working since KimWhite's initial claim in 2006 to reunite Nolan and his brother or adopt them out. The caseworker hasalso worked to reunite the boys with father. Ms. McKenna recommended the claims be denied.
Ms. McKenna confirmed that SRS worked with Mr. and Ms. White to maintain the boys in the home for several years. Nolan’s behavior became more disruptive, and the corporal punishmentadministered was excessive. SRS began working with the mother. Nolan told of being sexualabused by a maternal uncle. Ms. White was not able to keep him from that relationship. Nolan was a challenge for all adults to deal with. When in a group home, Nolan was sexually assaulted byanother resident, an older boy. Interviews of staff in the group home by law enforcement and SRS,told them that the maximum time Nolan was alone was five minutes at a time. Ms. McKenna saidthe perpetrator was taken into custody, charged with aggravated sodomy, but was found unfit tostand trial. Providing more information on the perpetrator is not justified in defending SRS in thisclaim. The group home is a licensed home in good standing.
Senator Terry Bruce moved, due to the sensitive nature of this claim, that the open meeting of the Joint Committee on Special Claims Against the State be recessed for a closed meetingpursuant to KSA 38-2212(d)(1) and KSA 75-4319 for the purpose of gleaning pertinent informationfrom the claimant, that the Joint Committee on Special Claims Against the State resume the openmeeting in this room, 143-N of the Statehouse, at 4:25 p.m., and this motion, if adopted, berecorded in the minutes of the Joint Committee on Special Claims Against the State and bemaintained as part of the permanent record of the Committee, that those in attendance be membersof the Committee, designated staff, the claimants, and SRS' designated agent. Representative BillFeuerborn seconded the motion. Senator Kelly Kultala excused herself from the executive sessionbecause her employer is Youthville. The motion carried. The Joint Committee on Special Claims Against the State resumed the open meeting portion A Committee member asked Ms. McKenna if a judge signs off on SRS taking a child from the home and returning a child to the parents. She said the court decides the time table forintegrating a child back into the home. There is a hearing and report each year to determine whetherSRS is doing its job satisfactorily. The court did not find that the state was not doing what it couldfor the White children.
A Committee member asked Kim White how he determined, in 2006, to claim the amount of $51,000. Mr. White explained that former Senator Phil Journey had told him he could not sue theState and he wanted to be able to take this to court to show that the people in Wichita were nottaking care of his children. Nolan is living with him now, but Mr. White does not have custody; therewill be a hearing within the next month or two. His youngest son has been adopted.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 5841 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) (Senator Kultala abstained fromthe vote.) Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6208 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) (Senator Kultala abstained fromthe vote.) Jerry and Denise Dahlstrom's Claim No. 5690 against SRS in the amount of $1.2 million
for termination of medical provider status for their 10th Street Medical, Inc. business has pendingcourt proceedings. As a result, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 5690 be deniedwithout prejudice. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Mike Heim, Office of the Revisor of Statutes, summarized the revision of the bill draft he
prepared for the Committee. He explained that he deleted the provision that the Judiciary CommitteeChairperson be on the Claims Committee. The bill draft reduces the Committee membership from13 to 7 members. The draft addresses the ranking minority member on page 2; the draft allows fora "one-time appeal" by submitting a specific reason a claim merits hearing; Section 4 addresses the implementation, cut-off date, and effective date change, as well as where the changes would haveto be published.
Chairperson Owens stated he was inclined to have the Committee think on the information and take up the topic first thing the next morning. Discussion followed that addressed the followingissues; the assignment to committee (the Speaker and President may assign the bill to whatevercommittee they desire); the concept that 13 minds are better than seven and lean toward less bias;this Committee is more judicial in nature than legislative, making more not necessarily better; andsmaller bodies can sometimes coordinate attendance more easily.
Cindy Lash mentioned that SB 93, which reduces the size of the Committee, is currently in The topic was deferred to Friday, December 4, 2009, for further discussion.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Friday, December 4
Morning Session
The meeting was called to order at 9:08 a.m.
The Chairperson opened the telephone hearings filed by inmates at El Dorado Correctional
Facility.
Richard Hamm summarized Claim No. 6196 against KDOC in the amount of $97.75 due
to loss of property. He explained that he was sent to segregation directly from a hearing. Hisproperty was packed out of the 4-man cell. Prior to leaving for the hearing, he had locked up all hisproperty, except for his television which did not fit in a locker. When the property inventory formswere brought to him, two different forms, one was for allowable property in segregation and one forelectronics and anything else that he was not allowed in segregation. He signed the one for allowedproperty, but not for the unallowed property. His electronics did not come back to him. Libby Snider, KDOC, responded by saying that they could not substantiate that he owned the electronics that he claims were missing. It is possible that his property was stolen prior to thepackout, but it is possible that he gave his property away. She recommended that this claim bedenied.
Ownership of property was discussed. Mr. Hamm said his receipt for the television was in his property. Ms. Snider said that property is etched with a serial number and the inmates’ number.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6196 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) The Chairperson opened the telephone hearings filed by inmates at Hutchinson
Correctional Facility.
Ronald Hailes summarized Claim No. 6199 against HCF for denial of medical treatment
in the amount of $900. He stated that Ms. Holmes was told to send him to the clinic for treatment several times and refused to send him. Because there was a Form 9, she was called several timesby the nurse to send him over.
Mr. Hailes was asked why his claim was for $900. He explained that KDOC charges inmates each time they miss a sick call. It is a fair amount.
Ms. Snider responded by saying that it was verified that he was to have a foot soak after removal of an ingrown toenail. The denial was due to a misunderstanding. He claims that it delayedthe healing of his foot, though there is no evidence of such. She recommended that this claim bedenied.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6199 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Gary Lynn Gillom, Jr. summarized Claim No. 6204 against Hutchinson Correctional Facility
for property damage and loss in the amount of $9.98. Mr. Gillom explained that he let anotherinmate look at his magazines before they went to sleep. The next morning the magazines wereconfiscated by a guard and destroyed. The guard had said that Mr. Gillom’s name was not on them,so he threw them out.
Libby Snider, KDOC, responded that the guard had stated that there was not a name or id on the magazines, so they were destroyed. Dealing and trading is prohibited, which includesborrowing or loaning items. Loaning them to another inmate made them contraband and, therefore,eligible for confiscation. She recommended the claim be denied.
Mr. Gillom replied that a dealing and trading charge would have been understandable, but he was not charged with that infraction. Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6204 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Harry Chance's Claim No. 6195 was summarized by Cindy Lash, against Hutchinson
Correctional Facility for loss of property in the amount of $35.65. When he was transferred toanother unit items were missing. Since then some items have been found, but the shoes were not.
The unit manager approved payment of the claim; the Secretary denied it.
Libby Snider, KDOC, recommended payment of this claim.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6195 be allowed for $35.65. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Cindy Lash summarized Darnell Benton's Claim No. 6200 against Hutchinson
Correctional Facility for loss of property in the amount of $17.97. During a shakedown his musclemagazines were confiscated due to no identification on them.
Libby Snider, KDOC, responded that three magazines were confiscated during a shakedown because they had no names or numbers. They were not in plastic sleeves with identification. Noevidence to the contrary was provided. She recommended that this claim be denied.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6200 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) The Chairperson opened the telephone hearing filed by Roberto Honeycutt at El Dorado
Correctional Facility.
Roberto Honeycutt summarized Claim No. 6226 against El Dorado Correctional Facility
for loss of property in the amount of $31.29. When in segregation, an inmate contacted Mr.
Honeycutt's girlfriend with Mr. Honeycutt’s phone account.
Libby Snider, KDOC, responded by saying that it was determined that another inmate had used Mr. Honeycutt’s pin number for his phone account. Investigation did not find that the otherinmate was charged with a disciplinary report, so that he would be charged restitution to Mr.
Honeycutt. The inmate and Mr. Honeycutt were previously found to be involved in illegal activitiestogether and, at that time, either Mr. Honeycutt or his girlfriend had given the other inmate the phonenumber. She recommended this claim be denied.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6226 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) The Committee revisited the subject of draft legislation.
The topic of deciding a claim without a hearing was discussed. The question arose that if the Committee could deny claims without hearings and the claimants could appeal, if the Committeedecided to pay a claim without a hearing, could the state agency appeal. Mr. Heim stated that aprovision could be added to the draft to allow these appeals.
The number of attorneys from each chamber in the membership of the Committee was discussed. Currently it is two attorneys from each chamber; the bill draft would change that to onefrom each house.
Some Committee members stated that they do not support this bill draft, but have no problem with Chairperson Owens taking the bill draft to leadership. The committee process will provide goodinput and options for this bill.
Chairperson Owens stated that he will present it to Senate Judiciary Committee to begin the The Chairperson opened the telephone hearings filed by inmates at the Topeka
Correctional Facility (TCF).
Kathrine Burns summarized Claim No. 6178 against TCF for sexual misconduct and
mental anguish in the amount of $50,000. She explained that she was sexually harassed by a maleofficer who stuck his hand inside her shirt, caressing her breast, under the pretense of finding herbadge, and was then told to meet him in the day room within the hour. She did not go to the dayroom to meet him. Security cameras are around to see pat-downs.
Libby Snider, KDOC, responded that an investigation was done. Ms. Burns was interviewed as well as the officer. Video tapes were looked at and it was determined that he took her badge from her pocket without lingering. She was given a disciplinary report due to her badge clip having anerroneous security level on it.
A Committee member asked if there are not female officers present. Common sense would recommend that female officers be present for a search, and reaching into a pocket is a bad choice.
Ms. Snider responded that she thought it would not be appropriate for a female officer to reach inside an inmate's pocket as well. She also thought it is a requirement that badges be wornoutside the clothing, not in a pocket.
Ms. Burns stated that she had pled no contest to summary judgement, because she had a blue clip on her badge. But the officer still had violated her, because of going inside the pocket andfeeling her breast.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6178 be carried over and be referred to the Governor's special investigation of sexual misconduct within Corrections.
(See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Shelia Hudson summarized Claim 6211 against TCF for personal injury in the amount of
$100,000. She stated that she was attacked and struck. The inmate that attacked her has still notbeen charged after two months. Ms. Hudson was removed to segregation, not the attacker. Theother inmate is that one that should have been moved. Video tapes of the incident were neverviewed. After the second incident, it was ordered that the cameras’ tapes be viewed; this was notdone.
A Committee member asked why her claim was for $100,000 for the personal injury when all she had presented was discussion on procedure.
Ms. Hudson replied that her nose was bloody and now needs surgery. She has no idea of the cost of the surgery she needs, but medical costs are high with no insurance. Ms. Snider said this claim is about housing and injury to Ms. Hudson's nose. After the incident, Ms. Hudson was moved, as well as the other inmates. One was charged with battery; theother case is still pending. Her written claim does not say that KDOC did not respond appropriately.
She recommended that this claim be denied.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6211 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Debbie Elaine Crain summarized Claim No. 6212 against TCF for personal injury in the
amount of $4,200. Ms. Crain stated that she was put in TCF due to parole violation; revocation wasnot computed. Ms. Crain wants her "served time" restored.
Ms. Snider responded saying that when Ms. Crain violated her 36-months post-release supervision, she was ordered to serve time to her discharge date. There were new offenses due tothis violation. She must to serve the time consecutively; however, good time has been applied dueto this investigation. She recommended this claim be denied.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6212 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Tarlene Williams summarized Claim 6225 against TCF for personal injury in the amount
of $500,000. She stated that HIV inmates are not segregated from other inmates. Due to an HIVpositive inmate putting her blood in Ms. Williams' drinking cup, Ms. Williams is now undergoing HIVtesting and has been found to have hepatitis C which she did not before she came to TCF. Herfuture medical expenses are unknown. She has not been started on medication yet. Testing will beevery four months.
Libby Snider, KDOC, responded that the HIV positive inmate was reportedly asked by another inmate to cut her finger and put blood into Ms. Williams' drinking cup. Ms. Williams was sentto medical for testing. The investigation remains open. Federal requirements do not routinelyrecommend that HIV positive inmates be segregated. She recommended this claim be denied.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6225 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) The Chairperson opened the telephone hearing filed by an inmate at the Ellsworth
Correctional Facility (ECF).
Larry Wheeler summarized Claim No. 6151 against KDOC for personal injury in the amount
of $75,000. His pinky finger has been cut off. Ms. Snider responded that Mr. Wheeler was operating a table saw and cut his fingers. KDOC was not negligent. Medical treatment was provided after the incident. Within nine minutes from thetime he was cut he received medical care. He was taken to the emergency room, and had surgerythe next day. She recommended this claim be denied.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6151 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) The Chairperson opened the telephone hearing filed by an inmate at the Norton
Correctional Facility (NCF).
Gerardo Lopez-Brito, through an interpreter, summarized Claim No. 6229 against KDOC
for property damage in the amount of $242.00. Mr. Lopez-Brito said that he was in the yard, atEllsworth Correctional Facility, when an officer opened his pod and six people went into the pod.
When he returned to his cell, everything was broken. The captain and warden told him thateverything that was broken or missing would be paid for within six months and not to worry aboutsubmitting a property claim; it would be taken care of. To date, nothing has been done to repay Mr.
Lopez-Brito, so he filed the property claim and the claim against the state.
Libby Snider, KDOC, responded that this is contrary to what she found. The investigator interviewed officers and found no negligence on the part of facility staff, nor any documentation tosupport Mr. Lopez-Brito's claim or to dispute the investigator's findings. She recommended thisclaim be denied.
Mr. Lopez-Brito said the unit team, the captain, and warden said they would send all the paperwork and evidence on his claim from the Ellsworth Correctional Facility to him at NortonCorrectional Facility. He sent all the documentation of evidence that he was given with his claimform.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6229 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) The Chairperson opened the telephone hearing filed by an inmate at the Larned
Correctional Mental Health Facility (LCMHF).
Michael Lee Brooks summarized Claim No. 6202 due to personal injury in the amount of
$1,500. He explained that, when he was transferred from El Dorado Correctional Facility to LCMHF,he refused to take the medication Geodon. He stated that Lansing Correctional Facility previouslyhad him on Geodon and it made him sick by raising his blood sugar levels. LCMHF put him onHaldol, even though it previously had made him "slow and sleepy." His claim was that they werecausing him injury by not allowing him to be on the medication Abilify, which, in his opinion, workedthe best. Eventually, Larned State Hospital (LSH) staff put him on Abilify.
Libby Snider responded that Abilify was not on the correctional facilities' list of medications where he previously was being held. She does not know why facilities use different formularies. Shewill check on this. The Haldol, however, stabilized him, though it made him sleepy. His requests forAbilify were forwarded to the proper medical personnel. When he was transferred to LSH, hismedication was changed from Haldol to Abilify. The facilities have treated him appropriately. Therehas been no negligence. She recommended this claim be denied.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6202 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) The Chairperson opened the hearings for personal appearances.
Jacqueline Hudson appeared for hearing on Claim No. 6081 against TCF for medical
negligence in the amount of $500,000. She stated that she had a hip replacement in 2005. Afterthat she was put in TCF, she complained of chronic pain in her hip. TCF staff took her cane fromher and did not follow up. After her release from TCF, she pursued medical treatment for her pain.
It was found that the artificial hip was too large for her and there was a broken screw in it.
Libby Snider responded that Ms. Hudson had received the hip replacement prior to intake.
A cane and pain medications were provided. X-rays showed that there was nothing that could bedone. It was documented that she was seen numerous times without her cane. Her case wasreviewed and it was determined that she needed no cane or medications. She showed improvementwhen doing the exercises prescribed. No negligence has been proved. She recommended thisclaim be denied.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6081 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Cindy Lash summarized Claim No. 5894 submitted by Ronald Murray against KDOC for
confiscation of legal documents in the amount of $22,471.42. Libby Snider recommended this claim be denied. She stated that the inmate elected which documents were to be removed from his property, not the staff. His litigation was not impacted dueto removal of materials.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 5894 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Finney County, Kansas, filed Claim No. 6210 against the State of Kansas for
reimbursement of costs from the sexually violent predator expense fund in the amount of$26,283.06.
Steve Phillips, Attorney General's (AG's)Office, stated that the AG's Office recommended payment of this claim. Christine Ladner is the attorney who oversees sexually violent predatorissues. A Committee member asked if there will be more claims like this and if there is any money at all appropriated for these matters.
Christine Ladner stated that she believes there will be more claims. This Act was enacted in 1994. There are 199 persons in the Sexual Predator Treatment Program at Larned State Hospital,currently. As of August 21, 2009, they are entitled to have annual reviews. A district court judgeruled that the offenders are entitled to independent professional reviews. It is her opinion that therewill be more litigation in this regard. Every year each case has the medical staff sending reviews todistrict courts.
A Committee member asked why they receive an annual review as opposed to every two or three years. The answer given was "because it is in the statute." A Committee member asked if it would still be held constitutional if the reviews were every two or five years. The answer was not known. This claim is not from one of the 199 in the Program,and there are 40 new cases each year.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6210 be allowed for $26,283.06 to be paid from the State General Fund. (See section captioned “Committee Action andRecommendation.”) Cindy Lash summarized Claim No. 5823 from Chris Johnson against KDOC due to
personal injury in the amount of $250,000. This is an old claim and his lawsuit is resolved. He wasjogging while incarcerated, stepped into a hole dug by a dog, and broke his ankle, which causescontinued pain.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 5823 be denied without prejudice. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Cindy Lash summarized Claim No. 6207 from Grady Ragsdale against KDOC due to loss
of property in the amount of $59.52. His tennis shoes were lost when transferred to a new facility.
He was required to change shoes at the last minute.
Libby Snider, KDOC, concurred with Mr. Ragsdale's explanation of his claim and Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6207 be allowed in the amount of $59.52. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Cindy Lash summarized Claim No. 6209 from Marceline Collins against KDOC due to
loss of property in the amount $16.54. Ms. Collins ordered a book from Barnes and Noble to be sentto her son in a correctional facility. He did not receive the book. It was given to another inmate andthat inmate was sent to another facility.
Libby Snider, KDOC, responded that the book was received and logged in for censorship.
It was then lost. She recommended the claim be paid.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6209 be allowed in the amount of $16.54. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) The Committee recessed at 12:00 noon.
Afternoon Session
The Committee reconvened at 1:35 p.m.
Motor Fuel Tax Refunds submitted to be paid in 2010 total $81,473.31. Cindy Lash explained Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that the Motor Fuel Tax Refunds of $81,473.31 be allowed. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Dr. Erick Nolan Youvan summarized Claim No. 6224 against Pittsburg State University
(PSU) due to personal injury in the amount of $5.0 million. Dr. Youvan stated that this claim wasdriven by a conversation with PSU former General Counsel, Darron C. Farha, who was sent onvacation the day after he spoke with Dr. Youvan. He was exposed to a pesticide fog, Rejex-it, onthe PSU campus. Grape KoolAid artificial flavoring is what the Rejex-it information page shows isin the bird fog that was used on the PSU campus. He had an asthmatic response to this exposure.
The pain and suffering this bird fog has caused, in addition to Dr. Youvan's claim that he was labeleda threat to the University, is the basis of this claim. Dr. Youvan states that the $5 million figure wassuggested by Mr. Farha. Dr. Youvan stated that his injuries are emotional, physical, and legal: Physical injury - he is now required to carry inhalers; Emotional injury - patients have not seen him since these allegations;and Legal injury - how can he defend himself against a university.
In answer to a Committee member's question asking if, since PSU contracted with a pesticide company, should the suit not be against them, Dr. Youvan replied that the bird fog was not appliedas per specifications on labeling. A Committee member asked how it was sprayed, to which Dr. Youvan answered that it was sprayed from the third floor of Brandenburg Stadium. It was a visible fog. The doctor with whom he consulted, Dr. Hurder, directed Dr. Youvan to get a chest x-ray.
He stated that he did not get one, because when a person goes to an emergency room, he musthave knowledge of the product ingested, or inhaled, or a sample of it.
Dr. Youvan stated he had a cover letter from the Department of Agriculture, case #9JM9226, that he claimed was significant, although it says there is inconclusive evidence to go to theEnvironmental Protection Agency regarding negligence and due diligence. A Committee member summarized to make sure Dr. Youvan's story was clear: ! At 4:30 p.m., Dr. Youvan was walking out of the PSU library; ! A contractor was applying Rejex-it fogforce bird repellant approved by the EPA, deemed reduced risk pesticide, from the third floor of the stadium; ! Dr. Youvan experienced an asthmatic attack, tingling in his hands, blurred vision, bi-lateral tinitus, shaking, and difficulty breathing; ! Dr. Youvan tried to go to the campus clinic; ! He was transported to an emergency room; ! After seeing a doctor, who prescribed a chest x-ray, Dr. Youvan left the emergency room without having the x-ray performed; ! Dr. Youvan saw Dr. Brown at Girard Medical Hospital, who prescribed a ! Dr. Knox at University of Kansas Medical Center tested Dr. Youvan's pulmonary ! Dr. Youvan has been unable to go back to the doctor, due to emotional issues.
A Committee member asked Dr. Youvan what his economic loss is at this time that caused him to place a claim for $5.0 million. Dr. Youvan replied that he had no good answer to give at thistime.
Dr. Youvan stated that he was on campus to apply for a job with PSU's Physics Department, but was not hired. He was asked to leave the campus after going to the administration officesdirectly from the hospital asking what chemicals were used in the bird fog and to see the MSDS.
John Patterson had him escorted off the campus by armed security guards.
A Committee member asked him why he saw a doctor in Kansas City and a different doctor in Girard. Dr. Youvan explained that he lives on a farm in Arma, Kansas. Jamie Brooksher, General Counsel, Pittsburg State University, responded by saying: ! There was no medical evidence that he was injured; ! PSU was not the entity spraying the fog, it was Schendel Pest Control, ! The Department of Agriculture's report shows they investigated Schendel and ! The birdfog is made from food grade materials (grapes).
The question was asked if many other people walked through the fog, were there other complaints. Ms. Brooksher replied there were not other complaints and that PSU would hold thepest control company responsible for proper application.
Dr. Youvan responded that since the report from the Department of Agriculture stating there was “inconclusive evidence,” the Department of Agriculture has since changed their statement to saythe evidence is sufficient. Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6224 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Nicola Jo Attebery, Claim No. 6227, against University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMed)
due to property damage in the amount of $1,000, was not present, nor were representatives of themedical center.
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6227 be denied. (See section captioned “Committee Action and Recommendation.”) Clifford N. Cormier summarized Claim No. 6228 against the Kansas Bureau of
Investigation (KBI) in the amount of $95,000. Mr. Cormier purchased a 1969 Boss Mustang for$19,400 from Timothy Brumbaugh, stepson of Dr. Carl Grant, after seeing it four times andinvestigating the value. Mr. Cormier had a friend at the Sheriff's Department run the VehicleIdentification Number (VIN) through NCIC and found the car to be "clean." He planned to replacethe heater core at a later time, so he put the car in a storage unit. Within the next day or two, Mr. Cormier was contacted at his place of employment by Jeff Brandau, Agent, KBI, saying the car was a stolen vehicle and had been stolen since October. AgentBrandau allegedly informed Mr. Cormier that he was at Mr. Cormier's house, he had Mr. Cormier'sson, and Mr. Cormier needed to come there. Mr. Cormier had the title in his truck, so he called theSheriff's Department and checked the VIN against the NCIC database again. The car did not showas stolen. Mr. Cormier called his attorney, Mike Francis. He explained what was happening and that Mr. Cormier had the title, the canceled check, the bill of sale, and the car; the car could not be stolen.
Agent Brandau spoke with Mr. Francis on the phone and told him that he had in his possession thestolen car report. Mr. Francis told Mr. Cormier to give the agent the car. Agent Brandau then told Mr. Cormier that he did not actually have the report and the Merriam City Police Department could not fax the stolen car report over, because they were not open.
Topeka police officer Jepson, who was accompanying Agent Brandau, took the title from Mr.
Cormier; called in the VIN to check it against the Topeka Policy Department database; and it did notshow the car as stolen. Under threat of arrest, Mr. Cormier took them to the storage unit. Theywrote down the VIN. Officer Jepson called it in again and the database still did not show it as stolen.
Agent Brandau then took the VIN to his car, came back to them 15 to 18 minutes later, and said "it'sstolen now." According to Mr. Cormier, the former owner, Dr. Carl Grant, had been a confidential informant for the KBI. The KBI agent was doing him a "favor" by pursuing his "stolen" car. Approximately 15 days later, Dr. Grant contacted friends of Mr. Cormier to ask if Mr. Cormier wanted to purchase the car again for another $20,000. It was apparently located on a car lot, via the internet, for sale in Warrensburg, Missouri, at a collector car dealership for $95,000. Mr. Cormiersued Agent Brandau for the $95,000, but the KBI agent was found immune in court.
Mike Francis, Mr. Cormier's attorney, had filed an action against Agent Jeff Brandau, which was dismissed on the basis of the Kansas Tort Claims Act, that it was in due process of aninvestigation. Therefore, this is not one of those things that Mr. Cormier could recover by goingthrough the court system. The Claims Committee is his last resort. Mr. Francis does not know if anyinvestigation was done by Agent Brandau or the KBI. Topeka Police Officer Jepson had run the VINnumber twice; the Topeka Police Department computer did not show it as stolen.
The name on the title was John Knowles, Burbank, California. It was filled out by him and assigned to someone else. Mr. Cormier said he had called and spoken with Mr. Knowles, prior tothe purchase of the car. The car was not stolen. Mr. Cormier was in the process of contacting theHighway Patrol in Burbank, California, to confirm his information. Mr. Cormier had left with the seller, Mr. Brumbaugh, after giving the vehicle to the KBI, to get his money back. Mr. Brumbaugh did not meet him at the designated location after he wassupposedly going to the bank to retrieve the funds. Mr. Cormier's check had already cleared hisaccount.
Laura Graham, attorney for the KBI, responded that Mr. Cormier wants to recoup lost potential profits in asking for $95,000. He had the same allegation against the KBI two and one halfyears ago in the court case. The car has not sold for that amount to their knowledge. She went onto say the Merriam Police Department say the car had been stolen. They do not know if its VIN wasentered into NCIC. She confirmed that Dr. Carl Grant had been a confidential informant for the KBI.
The KBI assisted the Merriam Police Department in securing the vehicle. Mr. Brumbaugh led AgentBrandau to Mr. Cormier, and left with Mr. Cormier to repay him. Ms. Graham asked why had Mr.
Cormier not pursued Mr. Brumbaugh in recouping his loss.
A Committee member ask if the KBI has any verification of a stolen vehicle report or that Dr.
Grant had owned the vehicle. Ms. Graham said she has no documentation from the Merriam policedepartment. Once the KBI seized the vehicle, they were out of the loop. They assumed thatMerriam police returned the car to Dr. Grant.
Ms. Graham said Agent Brandau is now retired from the KBI and is in Afghanistan. She thoroughly read the KBI file on this case, as well as the lawsuit. There had been a 12b6 motion todismiss the lawsuit. It was according to KSA 75-6104 that Agent Brandau was found to be immuneand the case was dismissed. Paperwork from the National Law Enforcement TelecommunicationsSystem (NLETS) did identify that the vehicle was stolen; this was confirmed by Agent Ikoff and againwas confirmed by the Merriam police. Ms. Graham believed NLETS to be a companion databaseto NCIC, but will find out and let the Committee know.
Committee members posed more questions to Ms. Graham and Mr. Cormier for clarification: ! Did the KBI take possession of car or did the Topeka police?
! How did Mr. Cormier know the picture of the vehicle at the Warrensburg,
Missouri car lot was the same car?
Mr. Cormier was not sure;
! Had Mr. Cormier received title for the car from the stepson, Mr.
Brumbaugh?
He replied that he had;
! How could Mr. Brumbaugh have the title if he had stolen the car from his
stepfather?
Mr. Cormier said he did not think he could have;
! How did Dr. Grant or Mr. Brumbaugh report a stolen car if they did not have
title to the car?
Ms. Graham replied that she did not think they could;
Following discussion, the Joint Committee recommended that Claim No. 6228 be carried over to a future meeting at the call of the Chair during the 2010 Legislative Session and a letter be sentto the Attorney General requesting an investigation be done on this matter. Mr. Cormier and Mr.
Francis will be invited to hear the decision of the investigation. (See section captioned “CommitteeAction and Recommendation.”) The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
Prepared by Kathy LetchEdited by Dylan Dear and Cindy Lash

Source: http://www.kslegislature.net/li/m/historical/committees/minutes/09_10/interim_joint/joint/Claims%20Against%20the%20State/jtClaims2009120304.pdf